Page vs Tag Use Case

Questions & Help
4

I don’t know if anyone can be a veteran with just a few years of usage. This is not me, but I have a few thoughts.

Personal preferences are great for many reasons (too many to list here), however they are not equivalent:

  • Some things are objectively better than others, not for a given person, but for a given work.
    • Some things may:
      • theoretically achieve the same results
      • practically make no difference to the computer
    • This doesn’t mean that the user will have the same productivity with any of them.
  • This point becomes multiple times more important when collaborating with other users of different preferences:
    • Nobody should remove the right of preference. Nevertheless:
    • Nobody can prevent the mess from not using some agreed conventions.

Plugins are great also for many reasons, however they should not alter the conventions of the target application.

  • Overusing a plugin means missing from Logseq’s power.
    • A plugin can enhance the application, but cannot replace it.
    • Before using a plugin, check the alternatives, starting from the application itself.
  • Inline references are internal (or hard) associations.
    • The reason is exactly because they appear in the text.
      • They don’t appear in the text by coincidence.
    • Removing the text of the reference makes the note problematic.
      • The note is associated anyway, no matter if the text is turned to a reference or not.
    • If you express hard associations with tags, you are probably using the wrong application.
  • Tags are external (or soft) associations.
    • The reason is exactly because they don’t appear in the text.
    • The note suffers nothing by not mentioning the tag.
  • The above are not facts from Logseq’s code, but from its design.
  • If a hard association doesn’t appear inline, don’t make it a tag, rephrase the note.
    • References are not only to organize the notes, but also to reconsider them.

Below is a weak choice for a reference, which explains the difficulty in the specific case:

Here are some alternatives, depending on the desired focus:

  • code-learning
  • code-teaching
  • coding lesson
  • coding education

The difficulty to choose the proper reference can be an indication of a problematic note, e.g.:

  • This is not accurate.
  • As a coder myself, I can assure that non-coders can think fine.
    • Some coders are self-taught.
  • If someone doesn’t already know how to think, can never learn how to code.
    • Should learn to think before learning to code.
    • LLMs neither think nor code.
      • They are not taught either, they are just trained to put code together.
        • Nobody needs to learn that.
  • Coding is more about the language than about thinking.
    • Coding in different languages can lead to very different ways of thinking.
  • Coding is only one lesson for thinking. There are others and more important.
    • Thinking for oneself is more important than thinking in a specific way.
4 Likes